• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

RJKarl said:
There are obviously public health lines.
Click to expand...

I think this is somewhat of an important distinction. Legally to discriminate against a class of people you have to have some state justification (when it's rationality review, that justification is rarely important -- when it's more, like in regards to sexual orientation, it tends to need to be legitimate -- and when you get to race/religion/national origin state justification is almost never sufficient).

In terms of something like incest, even if it was afforded a higher degree of scrutiny (which it's not, currently), it would not be difficult for state's to put forth compelling reasoning that outlawing incest is a legitimate state interest because of birth defects which could result from pregnancies etc.

Not saying there isn't a legitimate state interest that states would put forth for precluding homosexuals to marry as well, but it isn't nearly as persuasive as it would be in terms of incest (for medical reasons), 12/40 year olds (for other reasons) etc.
 
RChildress107 said:
There is no public health issue in two brothers getting married.
Click to expand...

The public health issue obviously isn't as strong in cases of homosexual incest, but that "class"(?) isn't treated the same and isn't afforded a higher level of scrutiny judicially. Like it or not, barring incestuous relationships/marriage only needs to be met with any rational basis tests (i.e. is there a rational reason a state would want to bar this). When that is the case, state laws almost ALWAYS stand because the court can always come up with some rational reason for the law being in place.

Standard homosexual relations are elevated and require higher justification. As I said previously this is likely because of the prevailing attitudes in our country towards homosexuality as opposed to just incest. But as a practical matter judicially, the two tests aren't the same, and it is easy to see how a court would allow gay marriage without opening the door to incest. It isn't treated the same in terms of justification required by the state.
 
RChildress107 said:
RJ, given the argument i think you have presented the above are your four options. Either pick one of those 4 or change your argument.

There is no public health issue in two brothers getting married.

ETA: Also RJ I'm going to ask you again to please stop lying. I do not want to deny gays equality. I have stated several times that I don't think the state should grant extra rights or benefits to married couples.
Click to expand...

FUCK YOU. I'm not lying.

Are you for gays being protected in discrimination in hiring/firing lie Christians/Jews, etc. are?

Are for for gays being protected from discrimination in housing and mortgages like Christians, etc. are?

Incest is ILLEGAL. Until you can change that law, your question has no validity.
 
Gay marriage is illegal in NC as well RJ. Until that changes, is your question invalid?
 
sorry incest is illegal in EVERY state. Gays can marry in many states.
 
You know what, I've seen the light. Since I don't think that biological siblings should be allowed to marry, I also don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Thanks for the fucking wisdom, rchildress. It's not like homosexuality is a commonly recognized sexual orientation in all cultures, so it's perfectly logical to compare homosexuality to incest or beastiality, or whatever stupid, disingenuous avenue you might lead us down next. If you've got an opinion about it, just be upfront instead of trying to outsmart or outdumb everyone with a shitty PSAT logic puzzle.
 
You personally attacked me multiple times before I hit back.

Incest is illegal for reasons other than public health. It's also about abuse. I'm heading out for lunch.

I'm never going to give your incest an OK because the many levels of why it's illegal.
 
We can speculate on hypotheticals all we want but the reality is that gays are treated as an insular group worthy of protection by the SCOTUS. Stomp and yell about it if you'd like but that's the situation. Incest and things of that nature are not so recognized.

Therefore, because of the heightened scrutiny afforded to legislation enacted against sexual orientation, it is easy to see how permitting gay couples to marry would not be a broad holding. Until other groups are recognized by our society and in turn the court as deserving of/in need of extra judicial protection, the rationality test applies and states are free to discriminate. I don't see how gay marriage takes us much closer to allowing other groups to marry legally.

People can debate the morality of it and whatever issues the may have with that concept, but I don't think it inherently would serve as a gateway for other "groups" to marry.
 
Incest grosses people out because the image they generally associate it with is 1) a parent abusing a child or 2) pubescent siblings/cousins experimenting together. Yes, I agree that those things are gross. But when siblings/cousins are in their 30's and 40's? I really have no problem with them wanting to get married if they're in love.
 
I'm heading out as soon as I finish typing this. that's why there won't be any further responses until 5PM my tie or so.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
You know what, I've seen the light. Since I don't think that biological siblings should be allowed to marry, I also don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Thanks for the fucking wisdom, rchildress. It's not like homosexuality is a commonly recognized sexual orientation in all cultures, so it's perfectly logical to compare homosexuality to incest or beastiality, or whatever stupid, disingenuous avenue you might lead us down next. If you've got an opinion about it, just be upfront instead of trying to outsmart or outdumb everyone with a shitty PSAT logic puzzle.
Click to expand...

RJ has certain moral threshholds that he believes should not be crossed, but he insists otherwise. He's now going to fall back on public health, without answering the legitimate questions about relationships which aren't inherently dangerous but are simply distasteful to most of us. My point (at least) was not to talk anyone into changing their position on gay marriage based on absurd examples, but rather was to illustrate that all of us have moral thresholds that we believe should be enforced on others. The difference is that our thresholds are all different and based in different reasoning, so of course we disagree on how to apply them. That's okay.

RJ started trying to shout everyone down by insisting that to be against gay marriage is an imposition of a moral judgement on their relationship. I don't actually disagree with that, but I also believe that RJ would be more than happy to impose his standards on others if the occasion arose. His dodging the questions proves this point.
 
Last edited:
Eagles_Legendz said:
I don't see how gay marriage takes us much closer to allowing other groups to marry legally.

People can debate the morality of it and whatever issues the may have with that concept, but I don't think it inherently would serve as a gateway for other "groups" to marry.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't, and very, very few people actually believe it would. They just need some fear mongering rationalization to disguise their hate. People are proud of being against amendments like this. Who is proud of supporting it? Who is proud of denying people the right to marry? It's shameful, and that's why most of the people who support things like this are quiet about it. Of course there are lots of right wing political talking heads with loud mouths, but there certainly won't be any marches or public shows of support.
 
Last edited:
Alright, so we understand that you want the state to give up ALL marriage benefits. But you know that's not going to happen. From the standpoint that there will always be certain benefits that the government provides for marriage, what argument is there that the government should incentivize only male/female marriage?

In my mind, society benefits anytime a person settles down into a long term loving relationship with someone else. They are both happier and more productive, they aren't likely to be lonely and desperate (more likely to commit crime), they are better able to provide a stable home to a child, etc. Whether they're gay or straight. So I don't see any reason that the government should incentivize one over the other.
 
i don't know if you noticed, but this forum used to be named after him. he was kind of a big deal.
 
That's why I said go from the standpoint that the state will incentive some marriages. If the state WILL do that, what is the argument against doing it for All marriages?
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Go ahead and make those arguments then.
Click to expand...

That marriage is a more stable environment for procreation and for child rearing and promotes the concept of the family and is consistent with our history/traditions and sense of morality. That would be the argument (or part of it) in favor of restricting it from same sex couples. I do not find it persuasive but it exists.
 
Marriage has become more incentivized over the years for very un-PC reasons. Married people commit less crime, have better employment rates, their children perform better in school, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top